|
|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
4423 days ago
|
|
|
Three things: 1. The difference between an Occupy encampment and a clustered homeless population is that the Occupy encampment is there to disrupt the surrounding area (that's the point: to generate awareness) and the homeless cluster is there for safety and convenience --- in other words, for the intrinsic benefit of the people in the cluster. Policy responses to those two different circumstances aren't comparable. 2. I do not disagree that displacing organic, emergent clusters of homeless people to improve optics and quality of life for residents and tourists is an unfriendly and probably unhelpful policy response to homelessness. It is not my contention that shuttling homeless people out of the Mag Mile in Chicago is a positive step. This is, however, the standard policy response to homelessness in much of the US (not just Chicago), because the overwhelming majority of urban residents want it to be. 3. The relativism underpinning your sentiment about not judging the lifestyle of the homeless is disquieting. Homeless people aren't hobos. They aren't deliberately living a different lifestyle. They are an underserved population of mentally ill, substance-dependent people continually victimized by their circumstances through lack of medical care, death by exposure, and crime. Let me help you out: it is OK to judge homelessness as bad. Homelessness is bad. |
|
|
3. While I agree a large percentage of the homeless in Chicago are as you describe; it seems, at least from what I've read, SF contains a large enough percentage of homeless people that also seem to choose the lifestyle.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/22/homeless-by-choice/
Read the comments for more insight into the mindset.